A follow up question on this knowledge pool scenario: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/22177/

What we report if happens that player A has commited a D/DL Problem wich worth him a Game Loss and when you approach him to comunicate the infraction and the relative penalty Player A and B are willing to draw the match?


EDIT for further explanation: we know that we have to report 0-0-3 if no game are actually played, and 1-1-3 in the KP scenario, here we can say that B had conceded a game to A and then decided to ID, but again no game are actually strictly “played”
Thanks

Luca

Edited Luca Chiassoni (Nov. 12, 2015 08:47:10 AM)

Report it as 0-0-3 I guess, as no actual games were played. And input the Game Loss penalty. WER won't notice that there's a GL penalty in a match with no game wins recorded.

I'll take a moment to take a soapbox stance on this: I still strongly feel that keeping to a 0-0-3 is the cleanest way to input it into WER because anything beyond that requires players to agree to concede for the sake of a tournament reporting issue, and having that discussion and diving that deep into the topic with a player is typically not doing good customer service in my opinion.

Having said that, there's another element here that could be very relevant. You mention that when you approach the table to communicate the infraction and issue the penalty, both players had already agreed to draw the match. In this case, wouldn't it end up being a 0-0-3 ID reported on the match slip with a Game Loss Penalty waiting to be applied to Player A's next match? At the point where you discovered the decklist problem they had already agreed to draw, therefore the issue was technically found in between rounds, at least from my interpretation of the scenario.

Originally posted by Marcos Sanchez:

I'll take a moment to take a soapbox stance on this: I still strongly feel that keeping to a 0-0-3 is the cleanest way to input it into WER because anything beyond that requires players to agree to concede for the sake of a tournament reporting issue, and having that discussion and diving that deep into the topic with a player is typically not doing good customer service in my opinion.

Having said that, there's another element here that could be very relevant. You mention that when you approach the table to communicate the infraction and issue the penalty, both players had already agreed to draw the match. In this case, wouldn't it end up being a 0-0-3 ID reported on the match slip with a Game Loss Penalty waiting to be applied to Player A's next match? At the point where you discovered the decklist problem they had already agreed to draw, therefore the issue was technically found in between rounds, at least from my interpretation of the scenario.

So in the same scenario would you hold them to an ID if one of the players decided against it after seeing an infraction?

I agree with the 0-0-3 here.